oOple.com Forums
Page 8 of 13 « First 67 8 910 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

oOple.com Forums (http://www.oople.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Race Chat (http://www.oople.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   When is a 2wd not a 2wd (http://www.oople.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133523)

bobbin 31-07-2013 03:00 PM
I saw first-hand the development of the CAT and PB 4wd drive cars which radically changed the sport in the 80’s.

Lipos and brushless motors again change the sport, making it possible for a privateer to compete with the pros and sponsored drivers without having to spend a fortune, which is a good thing.

I can’t see a problem with people using one car in two classes, would rather see that than the fall in numbers witnessed in the late 90’s.

For anyone new coming into the sport, it can be a real minefield choosing what to buy, having a car which can be run in two classes would be a real draw and it’s only a matter of time before one of the big manufactures develops one.

The key for this sport to continue to grow from strength to strength is design; development and keeping cost down and if it means having one car that can be run in two classes so be it.

bigred5765 31-07-2013 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Martin (Post 793123)
Taking Carl's argument further.... say you ban the use of the 'same' car both days... how far do you go? Many 2wd and 4wd cars from the same manufacturer use the same parts on each car. Arms, hubs, rear end structures, geometry....

So could this also be cheating? As you are using the same 'parts' both days?
How far do you take it?
I think put simply, if 2 wheels are driven, its 2wd.

I dunno really how much more you can say or do about it.

I understand why its happening though. As over years and years when racing on standard surfaces, generally development drivers strive for ways to add more grip and steering to '2wd' cars. When we set these cars down on bumpy mega Velcro tracks it makes them extremely nervous and hard to drive. The mid motor trend was the first progression to cure this.
As for 4wd, its not likely that developers have gone to the same extents in search for grip, as obviously its 4wd originally. So this leads me to believe that our current range of 2wd cars on high grip are not suited and have also never been developed for this, thus making the 4wd/2wd cars feel easier to drive.
The DB1 showed that this could be the case at Silverstone last year and to be honest, the TMC2 thing has really showed that a simple redesign can make a competitive car when the conditions are right.

This is just an unfortunate stepping stone to where the future is for this type of racing condition I think.
I know what your saying lee and I kinda agree, but my point was or is
running 4wd in 2wd on Saturday gives you time to dial the car set up in
so on Sunday the car is already dialed to the track IE dampers spring etc etc,so on Sunday pop your drive shafts in and bingo bango car is dial straight of the bat,
I no a man of your driving skills it wouldn't matter to much, I'm sure you could drive a Tonka truck round IN 2WD MODE and still stick it in the A Main:thumbsup: but for the minions it makes a huge difference.
im not against full 2wd conversions infact as someone else already stated it the way to innovate

Sabesto 31-07-2013 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark christopher (Post 793132)
Was making comment re the two posts I quoted.....

To you easy

2wd may only have one driven axle, no other gearbox or housing designed to carry gears or a differential will be permitted
It's not easy! as I said its not a gearbox if its not converting power/torque and its not a diff if its not providing an action to anything. It's just mass!!
So I would argue its designed to carry mass not a diff!
You can't ban housings as every bearing on the car has a housing!
And lastly you couldn't police the rules, even if you could come up with a watertight wording of the rules!

mark christopher 31-07-2013 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabesto (Post 793136)
It's not easy! as I said its not a gearbox if its not converting power/torque and its not a diff if its not providing an action to anything. It's just mass!!
So I would argue its designed to carry mass not a diff!
You can't ban housings as every bearing on the car has a housing!
And lastly you couldn't police the rules, even if you could come up with a watertight wording of the rules!
Utter bolloxs show me one dedicated 2wd car that has a gearbox/bulkhead capable of carrying a diff or "mass" or a dedicated 2wd that has bearing housings for drive train on the non driven axle end other than the wheels

Sabesto 31-07-2013 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark christopher (Post 793140)
Utter bolloxs show me one dedicated 2wd car that has a gearbox/bulkhead capable of carrying a diff or "mass" or a dedicated 2wd that has bearing housings for drive train on the non driven axle end other than the wheels
Your right I can't show you one. However if I could be bothered (which I can't)
I could design and build one that was designed to carry mass! That's the point I'm making, It would be impossible to make a rule up, that wouldn't have a loophole in it and it would be impossible to police such a rule. So why not just keep the rules simple like they are?

spenner 31-07-2013 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabesto (Post 793136)
It's not easy! as I said its not a gearbox if its not converting power/torque and its not a diff if its not providing an action to anything. It's just mass!!
So I would argue its designed to carry mass not a diff!
You can't ban housings as every bearing on the car has a housing!
And lastly you couldn't police the rules, even if you could come up with a watertight wording of the rules!
Clearly someone with a bit of knowledge.... Spot on in my eyes!

Skidrow 31-07-2013 03:42 PM
was extremely interesting to see xrays converted XB4s running in 2wd at the euros. I believe shock locations , oil /piston set ups,camber link locations ,ballasting etc were completely different to the ones chosen for the 4wd event so i dont think they can be considered having gained free practice (in this case at least) compared to drivers than only run 4wd

By the way i would like to know more on the proceedings that led to the ban of FWD cars from 2wd in the 87 worlds. How was this done? In my mind it seems like the small german manufacturer that managed to go very well with his schumacher based FFs lost a political type of battle to AE , Kyosho (short end of the stick). Am i wrong?

In my opinion FWD should be allowed the same freedom as RWD. Spec tires used for driving axle complete freedom (or the same type of freedom ) for the non driving axle as RWD

Also why not use the gyroscopic effects of additional rotating parts? even if proved almost necessary to have in the future ( which i dont think they will be in all tracks and conditions) , they will be relatively cheap and provide an additional technological dimension to the sport (they are not like some type of electronic traction control that only few can afford or tune with their own powers/abilities)

spenner 31-07-2013 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidrow (Post 793144)
was extremely interesting to see xrays converted XB4s running in 2wd at the euros. I believe shock locations , oil /piston set ups,camber link locations ,ballasting etc were completely different to the ones chosen for the 4wd event so i dont think they can be considered having gained free practice (in this case at least) compared to drivers than only run 4wd

Note: The Xray cars at the euros had a 2wd front end...

Skidrow 31-07-2013 04:00 PM
This means that they didnt have a powered differential rotating?

otherwise all suspension components were xb4 (empty diff housing included) , chassis bent for more kick up and some hangars for lower inboard camber link locations thats all


Quote:
Originally Posted by spenner (Post 793146)
Note: The Xray cars at the euros had a 2wd front end...

johnboy 31-07-2013 04:02 PM
Ok on the flip side of all this average joe clubman on a budget what better way to do both classes if all needs to do is remove front driveshafts.

Skidrow 31-07-2013 04:05 PM
important point for the majority of drivers who have no major sponsors

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnboy (Post 793152)
Ok on the flip side of all this average joe clubman on a budget what better way to do both classes if all needs to do is remove front driveshafts.

woOdy 31-07-2013 04:51 PM
Just had a chat with Jamie Booth at SMD and he said the getting the chassis scrutteneered when booking in so you have to choose 1 chassis for the day. I think it has already been said on here so I apologise if going over old ground.

Lee24h 31-07-2013 04:56 PM
You a buy a 4wd to race a 4wd clas
You buy a touring car to race touring
You buy a 8th nitro to race 8th nitro
You buy a 2wd to race 2wd
(Just because xray are experimenting with a xb4 in 2wd you will also notice most have a b4 front end and chassis mods under the shell it seems people look at picture and think i can do that without looking at the engineering and principles behind the the xb4/2 experiments
And i think cars do go to quick on astro a 2wd buggy doing the top end of 30 indoors on astro gimme grass n dirt any day

chuckie stella 31-07-2013 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee24h (Post 793168)
gimme grass n dirt any day
Build it lazy boy and they will come!

Lee24h 31-07-2013 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckie stella (Post 793175)
Build it lazy boy and they will come!
Ill build it if i get the support of a local club and land permission ild love to run in that horse shed again :p

mark christopher 31-07-2013 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnboy (Post 793152)
Ok on the flip side of all this average joe clubman on a budget what better way to do both classes if all needs to do is remove front driveshafts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidrow (Post 793154)
important point for the majority of drivers who have no major sponsors
all well and good but the drivers who have done it have said soon as the grip is low (not super high grip astro) then they're not as good.

agree it would be nice to have one car to do all but in a real world, if a manufacture came up with a car that could do both folk would still buy one of each to run on both days, or as in the oOple series where both classes are on the same days, your screwed then!

OldTimer 31-07-2013 05:48 PM
So people are adapting there cars to suit track conditions big deal, we have been doing this years :thumbsup:

But be careful what you wish for as tightening rules in my eyes will limit innovation, and you will end up driving similar cars but just with a different manufactures logo on it.

GRIFF55 31-07-2013 06:16 PM
I like the idea of one car for both days! Less dosh is always a good thing for any hobby.
Surely the setup advantage thing is a load of shite? Most people run the same make 2 and 4wds anyway, so could easily whip shocks onto your car for Sunday?
Most national track surfaces have been run on in previous years anyway, so a good setup is out here somewhere for all.

I'm thinking 2wd car both days at oz, can I do this?

MattW 31-07-2013 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark christopher (Post 793140)
Utter bolloxs show me one dedicated 2wd car that has a gearbox/bulkhead capable of carrying a diff or "mass" or a dedicated 2wd that has bearing housings for drive train on the non driven axle end other than the wheels
Correct as things stand today. However, let's say Durango decide to do a new 2wd car - we'll call it the DEX410-2 ;). What they actually do it take some 410 kits, remove the front driveshafts, front diff, and front prop. They then sell the car like this. So what you have is a car that is "designed" as a 2wd (it's sold that way, so it must be!!), but has all the bits to accommodate a front diff / convert to 4wd if you wished that could be purchased later. I used Durango as my example, as it has been said that their drivers removed all the front drive train. I happen to know that at least one of them tried the car with the drive train left in while testing, but didn't like it!!

Carl - so your point on the front drivetrain isn't entirely valid - but I know what you're saying. I can see the pros and cons for leaving it in. My gut feeling is that some of those that left it in were what's best described as being "economical with their wrenching".

Sabesto 31-07-2013 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattW (Post 793194)
Correct as things stand today. However, let's say Durango decide to do a new 2wd car - we'll call it the DEX410-2 ;). What they actually do it take some 410 kits, remove the front driveshafts, front diff, and front prop. They then sell the car like this. So what you have is a car that is "designed" as a 2wd (it's sold that way, so it must be!!), but has all the bits to accommodate a front diff / convert to 4wd if you wished that could be purchased later. I used Durango as my example, as it has been said that their drivers removed all the front drive train. I happen to know that at least one of them tried the car with the drive train left in while testing, but didn't like it!!

Carl - so your point on the front drivetrain isn't entirely valid - but I know what you're saying. I can see the pros and cons for leaving it in. My gut feeling is that some of those that left it in were what's best described as being "economical with their wrenching".
Exactly!! finally someone with sence! Pretty much the point I was trying to make about implementing any rule to stop it, but maybe put across in a better manner than I did!


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:48 PM.
Page 8 of 13 « First 67 8 910 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
oOple.com